2016-07-13_VB_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RVBA Attachment D EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE VARIANCE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a public hearing was held at the regular meeting of the 1 th Variance Board of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, on the 13 day of July 2 2016, at 5:30 p.m. 3 The following members were present: ____; 4 and ____ were absent. 5 Variance Board Member ___ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 6 VB RESOLUTION NO. _____ 7 A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO ROSEVILLE CITY CODE SECTION 8 1004.08 AT 2006 COHANSEY BOULEVARD (PF16-017) 9 WHEREAS, City Code §1004.08 requires principal structures to be set back a minimum 10 of 30 feet from front and rear property lines and further requires front porches to be set back a 11 minimum of 22 feet from front property lines; and 12 WHEREAS, the owner of the subject property has requested a variance to this section of 13 the City Code to allow a proposed new home to encroach approximately 8 feet into the required 14 rear yard and approximately 9 feet into the required front yard, equal to the foundation of the 15 original home on the property, and to allow a front porch to encroach approximately 7 feet into 16 the required front porch setback; and 17 WHEREAS, City Code §1009.04 (Variances) establishes that the purpose of a variance is 18 “to permit adjustment to the zoning regulations where there are practical difficulties applying to 19 a parcel of land or building that prevent the property from being used to the extent intended by 20 the zoning;” and 21 WHEREAS, the Variance Board has made the following findings: 22 a. The practical difficulty is created by the unusual lot shape and the fact that the 23 existing foundation occupies the largest part of the buildable space between the 24 setback lines, the combination of which either forces a new home into the smaller part 25 of the lot or adds significant excavation and engineering expense to make former 26 house location suitable for redevelopment if the existing foundation is not reused. 27 b. The proposed new construction represents the kind of reinvestment in residential 28 neighborhoods promoted by the Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, the encroachment 29 into the required front yard setback is the result of reusing an existing foundation, 30 rather than excavating it and disposing of it in a landfill, and not excavating to 31 remove the foundation and sewer and water services helps to preserve mature trees 32 near the house that would likely be damaged or killed by such a disturbance, both of 33 which are consistent with environmental goals in the Comprehensive Plan. 34 Page 1 of 3